Posted 4 years ago on July 30, 2012, 5:52 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Capitalism – in any way shape or form – must be abolished! The reasons for this are many, but one of the main reasons is that this system is often very undemocratic.

Now, in Capitalism it is the financial elite and the huge corporations that have the overwhelming power in the economy. They control the workplaces and the means of production, and they have huge power over the major and important investments etc. They have all this power over our economy and our communities, yet we’ve never voted for them. We’ve never voted for the ones controlling our workplaces, and we’ve never voted for the financial elite and speculators at Wall St. In a real democracy it would be the people themselves that got to be in charge of their own workplaces and communities. This is not the case in Capitalism; Capitalism is inherently undemocratic.

261 Comments

As for labor living without capitalism, or being democratic, the direct management of production by the workers through workers councils, attempted in the early 20th century (and some examples later) might be worth looking at. I wasn't able to read all the replies, so maybe it's already been mentioned.
In more recent times manufacturers have co-opted the term (or maybe they say 'workers' circles' or something like that) to create the impression of worker control while picking up the good ideas that come off the floor. The true councils replaced management in factories owned by the workers.

Argentine workers lock themselves inside the factories to produce under their own management. Inside, there will be individuals that lead the others. Even with democratic voting there will be people who influence others in how to vote. This is how it should be since not every one has equally clear insight. If the right decisions are not reached, the project may fail. Human activity, even animal activity, always finds the right solutions through the dominance by the most able. Ideally, it will be a humane dominance. You, yourself, are now seeking dominance of your ideas.

Is the risky undertaking of labor-run production worth while? The alternative, the status quo, may be efficient in certain areas but is a disaster on balance. So the more worker-owned enterprises and the more democratization of capital, the better. The way to a better society can not possibly be smooth. But it must roll down a road that first must be paved by someone.

You started your original post with "Abolish Capitalism". You meant democratize capital. Say it right up front. Even the people in Barcelona who went so far as to ban money, issued another form of script (vouchers). Capital is a resource like air and water. We all know it. We can't abolish capital. Please don't suggest you intend to.

If the workplace is run democratically they have an equal say. Noone's leading anybody.

"Even with democratic voting there will be people who influence others in how to vote."

People should be free to present arguments as to what they think the best solutions are. Free speech is important.

"If the right decisions are not reached, the project may fail."

In a highly organized Anarchist syndicalist/communist society it is the participants who are in control. A real participatory democracy is what we must strive for. Thru organization and cooperation a free sustainable society is fully achievable.

"Human activity, even animal activity, always finds the right solutions through the dominance by the most able."

So because wild animals do certain things, then that's an argument that civilized people should do the same? That's a little odd, to say the least.

"Ideally, it will be a humane dominance"

I don't want some people dominating others. I want everyone to control their own lives:

You're making no sense. I'm presenting my ideas and thoughts. I'm free to do that, as you are free to embrace them or reject them.

"Is the risky undertaking of labor-run production worth while?"

It's not risky at all. It has, and is working very well - even within a capitalist framework.

"You started your original post with "Abolish Capitalism". You meant democratize capital."

Democratization of the economy means a dismantlement of capitalism.

"Even the people in Barcelona who went so far as to ban money, issued another form of script (vouchers)."

Labor Vouchers is not the same as capital/money.

"Capital is a resource like air and water. We all know it. We can't abolish capital"

I think we should strive to create a society based on a free egalitarian classless society, with democracy controlled from below - a society where the economy is run democratically. This is a society where capitalism is no more.

Hairs are so easy to split. You have chosen to split every one I combed out. You might have noticed that I took the time to consider your video and, if you read closely, you will see I support the general movement you laid out. That must place me within a very small minority of Americans. Take your support when it comes, for worker control is risky to most people people who at least have a job, and now here comes someone who wants to experiment with it. You will have to convince a lot of people who feel very vulnerable about their survival. Splitting the hair of their fears may not work. It may be time for a little study of psychology, especially if you think giving people the right to speak and vote necessarily means they will think and vote for themselves. Most will follow those they trust.

We can dismantle our current capitalism, but will still have some form of it. Call it worker capitalism or sweep the ghost plumb under the rug with 'democratization of the economy', but still, even the speakers in your video recognize there will be some management of capital.

But enough of these hairs. There is only one point I feel is worth your time--if you want to succeed in winning people's minds and hearts. Turning the world around is a colossal task of organic transformation. You are asking people to change in every fiber of their being. If you think it odd to suggest a parallel exists between human behavior and animal behavior, then mull this over: we are more animal than we are human. Before you reach for the cleaver, mull.

Co-ops are growing in number, and the Occupy Movement has begun building solidaric and engaged communities. Hopefully these things will escalate eventually becoming the basis for a future just society.

Workers' councils never survived long enough to hash out many details and I can imagine that those currently in Venezuela are the government's preference for the way they control manufacturing. 'Imagine' is my word; I don't see it being much more, but I haven't been there.
So the whole concept is largely theoretical and represents revolutionary workers' desire to be rid of all bosses: labor unions, Soviet-style communists, etc. With little historical precedent to call on, I suppose I'm free to speculate . My money would be on banks that are organized in the same manner, supported by the rest of society and economy also in line. Perhaps someone has studied them in depth and could say what was actually tried when the embarrassing question of raising capital arose.
But I am not advocating anything. I'm suggesting concrete areas to explore to people who have ambitious, complicated ideas.

What can worker councils in countries like Venezuela accomplish without capital? A list of products comes to mind such as basket weaving, wood carvings, beads, and drugs. There is way more money in cultivating certain varities of hemp, coca and poppies than other less capital dependent manufacturing and agriculture.

It would be a lot easier if Marx wrote about proletarian socialism to serve as a guide to replace capitalism with socialism except to say that he did write on the 'withering away of the state' under a proletarian dictatorship once established but he did not provide details on its construction, but he did analyze capitalism in Vol i,ii, iii, and iv of Capital and stood for self emancipation of the working class.

Marx had some important contributions, but there are other contributions as to how we create a more just and democratic society from other thinkers that are worth looking at. Libertarian Socialist thinkers fex such as Rudolf Rocker, Peter Kropotkin and others.

two choices:ABOLISH
overcome at least 200,000,000 Americans who will have a civil was to keep cpaitalism
kill 10,000,000 "1%" capitalists
convince 100,000,000 Americans to fight to the death on this issue

OR

AMENDMEND to defang the serpent
80% of Americans ALREADY have decided that they want to overturn citizens united & corporate personhoon

Can you honestly tell me three "capialism" evils that not be solvable with this AMENDMENT passed?

Im not suggesting that we end capitalism over night. Capitalism must however be abolished in long term perspective. There are many different suggestions as to how the transition phase between today's society and a classless society should be dealt with.

Again - the problem is NOT the RICH or the CLASSED society
The problem is that they can legally buy the governmentStop that ONE thing -
and we will have government of the PEOPLE
by the PEOPLE
for the PEOPLE

This "mob rule" is only in your head. What I'm suggesting is, like I said, a democracy built and controlled from below in which people have a say in the things they're a part of and are affected by. Democracy means we all have a say in how our society is run; on some issues the majority agree with you, in other cases they don't. That's how it is to live in a soceity with other people.

Twelve voices were shouting in anger,and they were all alike.No question,now,what had happened to the faces of the pigs.The creatures outside looked from pig to man,and from man to pig,and from pig to man again;but already it was impossible to say which was which.

I am aware of the word and what it describes. "Neoliberalism" describes more the ideology, and ideas behind it. "State-Capitalism"/"Capitalism" describes more the existing system - which I want to abolish.

Thank you sff80. As I work through the material you've presented, I would like to offer a casual observation about the popular understanding of this form of social order. Mostly I've seen initial, seemingly insurmountable objections are quickly overcome by easy logic. I've seen this with others on YouTube, in journalistic interviews, and here in this forum with myself and others. If this points to a latent or inherent attraction to such ideas I cannot say.

Before circling back here I will make use of the resources at hand including your thoughtfully composed weblog.

One final thing, would you be comfortable offering another name that we might be able to identify and address you with? Or should we continue to use the abbreviated form on this board? You can call me Zach.

Question for sff80: in libertarian communism... How does the economic community continually flatten heirarchy arriving from charismatic figures and the like? Also more to the point, can a spirit of altruism in relations really be sustained over the course of a civilization? My human experience tells me a natural balance between cynicism and optimism is critical to individual and societal well being? Do you disagree?

"libertarian communism... How does the economic community continually flatten heirarchy arriving from charismatic figures and the like?"

In such a society all decitions are made by the ones particpating thru either consensus or democratic process. It's in other words based on a direct participatory democracy. Any large scale, complex society will probably need some kind of representative decition making, but that should always be done by recallable delegates voted by the group to which they belong (in other words very different from today's representative democracy). So in other words, there are no possibilities for powerhungry individuals to take control.

Please watch these two videos before you respond. They'll give you even more info:

"Also more to the point, can a spirit of altruism in relations really be sustained over the course of a civilization? My human experience tells me a natural balance between cynicism and optimism is critical to individual and societal well being? Do you disagree?"

Capitalism died in 1929. Technology is about to kill this country and pretense of capitalism for good. You can't out run or outwork technology. That's why the whole system is falling apart. That's why they can't fix the economy. That's why everything is falling apart. The jobs aren't coming back people. You're fighting the wrong fight and getting nowhere. Check out http://www.deathbytechnology.com and you'll see what I mean.

We can protest all we want but that won't fix the situation. Hell we can overthrow the government and we still won't fix the job situation. But that's a good thing. We have one way out of the mess. The nuclear option.

We don't have pure laissez-faire capitalism (that would be horrible!) We do however have a state-capitalist society which has become more and more deregulated, and where more and more wealth and power has been turned over to private enterprise. That's intolarable. Like I said, ANY type of capitalist systems must be abolished and replaced by better models.

Abolishing Capitalism means abolishing freedom. Capitalism hardly existed in history. For evidence, look to see just how free individuals have been throughout history. Find out what it rests on before you put a bullet in its head. Certainly crony capitalism exists but not capitalism for capitalism means the individual living freely in society. The rest is prosperity, especially when freedom is exponential. Instead, we have the horrors of a few enslaving the rest. For a look on how they finance it all, see money from nothing. For a look about how they export it, see economic hit men.

No, capitalism is tyranny - private tyranny. Like I said in the post, capitalism undermines democracy. Undemocratic structures have nothing to do with freedom. Freedom is to be in control of your own community, workplace, and life. Laissez-faire capitaism would be even more tyrannical than the existing system - giving the financial elite and top 1% even more power and influence over our lives.

Freedom means freedom from those who would motivate you (otherwise an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats against you. Coercion destroys your ability to think clearly and act consistently in the support and advance of your life. To be in control of your life means that you must choose to discover, think, come to know. But you are not just a head on a stick. Rather your nature as a human being means that you have to think and act in order to live. And you have to determine whether your actions are for or against your life, a critical part of living your life well. To think and produce is a moral choice (if morality is to have any meaning) and doing that consistently is living a truly human life. It is the ideal. It is certainly your prerogative to call that what you like but the name given to a society whose members choose to live that ideal is Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Its organizing moral principle is that each individual has to live his own life. Anything else, is less than human. Its organizing political principle is that individuals knowing that in order to guarantee that choice, they will have to ban coercion in their dealings with each other and to shackle those who violate that ban.

In your post, you are describing the absolute disintegration of freedom and want to abolish what and who caused it. I support you and everyone else of like mind. Like you, I say, "Abolish it." Never let people like them rise to ascendancy again. But keep in mind that you'll have to have something better to put in its place because otherwise the same ideas that gave rise to it will bring people back to it again. In and of itself, democracy does not guarantee freedom and peace, especially when so many have been brainwashed into accepting the tenets that the 1% count on. The will of the people can be a danger to an innocent individual or a minority of them. But the individuals who uphold that their life is the ultimate purpose of living and who choose to discover (or rediscover) that their greatest human virtue is between their ears and dedicate themselves to living rationally, will be the individuals who create a society that is moral, just, truly prosperous and free. Such a society will be brand new compared to most in our history and its members will have every moral justification to reject the philosophies of aggression and every political justification to rid themselves from their aggressors.

"Freedom means freedom from those who would motivate you (otherwise an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats against you.."

There's force in any kind of society. You're forced to follow the laws in the existing society. In a capitalist system you're forced to live in an environment in which the wealthy have the overwhelming power. That's intolarable. Capitalism must be replaced by real participatory democracy.

"Rather your nature as a human being means that you have to think and act in order to live."

If you're talking about a kind of "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" society, then that's a very backwards way of thinking about this. We have more wealth then ever, we can afford to take care of the ones who need it.

"And you have to determine whether your actions are for or against your life, a critical part of living your life well"

This sounds more and more like Ayn Rand. We should all be able to to do the things we feel is right for us, but that must be within a framework of a classless society. Wealth gaps means more freedom for some and less for others.

"It is certainly your prerogative to call that what you like but the name given to a society whose members choose to live that ideal is Laissez-Faire Capitalism."

Laissez-faire means total private tyranny. It means the power is in the hands of the financial elite - non-elected individuals having huge control over our lives and workplace. Non-democratic hierarchies are tyrannies. Whther it's state tyranny or private tyranny, it's intolerable.

"each individual has to live his own life."

Absolutely. I'm a strong supporter of individual rights. But I think those should include individuals having the right to be in control of their own lives and workplace.

"But keep in mind that you'll have to have something better to put in its place"

I want to replace Capitalism with a real participatory democracy - Libertarian Socialsim

"democracy does not guarantee freedom and peace"

No systems can absolutley guarantee freedom and peace in the future.

There are differnet kinds of ways of organizing democracy. I want it organized from below, so that people have say in things proprtional to how much they're affected. That way we have a good chance of peace and freedom.

First off, capitalism is not an ideology. It is the economic system where socialism is not.

Secondly capitalism is not synonymous with Wall Street. Wall Street can be described as Finance Capital. Most capitalists are not Finance Capitalists.

Thirdly, democracy is not an economic form. Democracy means rule of the people, which means everyone gets a say in some aspect of how things are run, not that everyone gets an equal piece of the pie. If you were to replace most of the times you use of the word "democracy" with "communism" then you'd be making sense.

"First off, capitalism is not an ideology. It is the economic system where socialism is not."

Lots of ideologies and political philosophies support capitalism/state capitalism. Libertarianism, so called objectivism, many who call themselves conservatives etc. All these awful ideologies support the capitalist system in one way or another.

"Secondly capitalism is not synonymous with Wall Street. Wall Street can be described as Finance Capital. Most capitalists are not Finance Capitalists"

I have never said it is. Where did that come from? I want the etire system to be abolished.

"Thirdly, democracy is not an economic form"

The economy could be run democratically by the participants...

"Democracy means rule of the people, which means everyone gets a say in some aspect of how things are run"

A real democracy should be about people having control over their own lives and workplace. We must abolish capitalism and replace it with real democracy.

"not that everyone gets an equal piece of the pie"

We should work to create a society where everyone has access to necessities at very least.

"If you were to replace most of the times you use of the word "democracy" with "communism" then you'd be making sense."

Communism or socialism (the anarchist variants that is) is democracy. A real participatory democracy without illegitimate hierarchies.

No, no. Anarcho-Syndicalism or Anarcho-Communism is a society with real participatory democracy. The capitalist system - especially in the United States - is very undemocratic; it must be replaced by real democracy.

George Soros, the "philanthropist", who made his billions in currency speculation, is funding global "democracy" movements. The idea behind this is to break-up the modern nation states, leaving populations defenseless against further looting from the corporate class.

Hehe. Well, this guy is really busy, and receives tons of e-mails every day, maybe you should at least look for answers by googling and browsing videos first. There's tons of Chomsky videos and articles on the internet, maybe many of the answers to your questions are already out there.. :)

He doesn't look like a man that recieves many emails .. I am sure your message would reach him. After all .. Chomsky has devoted his life to this cause.. and though he may speak of the world econimc problems , he too is looking for answers .. offer him one .. offer Chomsky the CAP on profits solution .. I am sure he has yet tohave considered its potential.

He's one of the most important figures in academia, of course many are contacting him. He does in fact get tons of e-mails every day, he's said so on several occasions. I think it would be best if you sent the questions you'd like him to answer yourself. You can find his email on the net, and he answers a lot of the questions he's recieving. Give it a shot, then :)

"I am suggesting that the backdrop for our discussion be an imaginary construct- a society without wealth but simply resources and simply people."

Well, like I've said, present any example and suggestion you want to.

I do however think what you're suggesting is a little puzzling, because situations in real life always have a context and surroundings which, if we were to do reasonable analyzes, had to include. Discussing hypothetical situations and relations in some imaginative/non-existing context is in my opinion not very constructive.

And another thing: Arn't resourses themselves wealth?

"Let's discuss as if there is no personal property to begin with. In such an imaginary society people have yet to create anything."

Set up any example you like. But again, discussing some kind of almost unimaginably primitive stone-age economy of some sorts is not very relevant to what should be our main focus - today's reality

"In your view, the participants should work to create "because they want to contribute, not because they want to make lots of money." You say that the purpose of the individual in such a society is to benefit the entire society. And you go on to explain how such an individual would live by saying, "He should contribute ... based on his creativity and skills, and in a way that he feels is right for him."

Sure.

"(I am sorry about the sudden stop but I can continue on later because I have to get to a meeting.)"

In reading your ideas, I see you fusing two ideas about power. One is creative power of individuals and the other is political power of a society- you've mashed the two into one. You write that you are all about freedom but freedom for whom to do what? The more you write, the more I am convinced that in principle, you are about the freedom of some to take from others, where "some" is the majority.

No number of votes by any group represents a threat to innocent individuals who decide that the will of the majority isn't for them. The only way to make the vote stick is to effect it thru political power. Ability or creativity of people is only a matter of degree. Some are more able than others but all need to be protected politically to make their own individual choices and live their own lives. An innocent individual needs to be protected from the thug in the alley but critically even more so, individuals needs to be protected from those who create laws that would force them by the threat of law to act in ways they wouldn't have but for the law.

You can't seriously expect people to want to contribute in the ways that you have written. Voluntary cooperation between individuals is an idea and practice that your system bans by majority rule. The only way to protect individuals is not through a LS Democracy. It is by each individual reclaiming their right to voluntarily act with one another with the goal of each improving his/her own life. The fundamental order of a just and peaceful society is the individual is first, voluntary cooperation among individuals is second and from there only a government chartered and funded by them to protect both is next. That is exactly what we don't have in our societies the world over. But shifting the force of law from the hands of crony capitalists to those of the masses still denies the individual.

Instead of putting your energies into the birth of LS as the antidote to the madness we all live with, I am suggesting that you put it into the rebirth of the individual and to the type of government that protects him. There is no doubt, that that is a monumental task. But what this struggle has over Libertarian Socialism and what it has over crony capitalism is the fact that it is right in the deepest sense of being right for each one of us.

"In reading your ideas, I see you fusing two ideas about power. One is creative power of individuals and the other is political power of a society- you've mashed the two into one."

There are lots of different power relations, but the two major ones in the world are state power and private power. It's not correct to call ptivate power "creative power"; you can have huge private wealth without having contributed anything, and you can be very creative and innovative and poor.

"You write that you are all about freedom but freedom for whom to do what?"

Freedom to control your own life - having a say in the things you're apart of and affect you.

"The more you write, the more I am convinced that in principle, you are about the freedom of some to take from others, where "some" is the majority."

Well just for a little while. Yes I want us to strip the wealthy and the owner from their power, but then create a society where there is common ownership. We need to change the system we have today, including today’s property rights.

There’s nothing controversial about that. Current property rights are not graven in stone; they’re not some unchangeable laws of nature. They can be changed just like they were, a certain time ago, changed into the ones we have today. Just like the wealthy business owners have been given the right to own more and more of the economic institutions, including the means of productions others are using, other forms of rights can instead be implemented like f.ex giving the workers the right to control their own workplace democratically.

"The only way to make the vote stick is to effect it thru political power."

Sure.

"Some are more able than others but all need to be protected politically to make their own individual choices and live their own lives."

People are different and should live out their unique abilities, and all must have strong individual rights, but it must be done within a framework of a democratic, classless society in which we share the wealth.

"individuals needs to be protected from those who create laws that would force them by the threat of law to act in ways they wouldn't have but for the law."

In a democracy individuals are the ones who make the laws. There should be strong individual rights, but it must come thru democratic process - all the individuals in the society having a say in their affairs.

"You can't seriously expect people to want to contribute in the ways that you have written."

Absolutely.

"Voluntary cooperation between individuals is an idea and practice that your system bans by majority rule."

The way things function in a non-regulated capitalist society (like all others) is that the more resources and wealth you have, the more power you have. So in this kind of society it is the big corporations and the financial elite who overwhelmingly are in charge of the economy and marked (very similar to today's actual society). They control the resources, the economic institutions, and the means of production. In other words: They have an overwhelming power over the economy and the marked as a whole.

Not only do the rich and powerful (in an undemocratic way) control the economy as a whole in huge networks of transactions, investments and stock exchange, they also rule the institutions in this kind of society in a totalitarian way. The economic institutions in a capitalist society have a totalitarian model: a tyrannical non-democratic hierarchy in which the people at the top - the CEOs, owners etc - dictate how the institution is being run, what’s being produced, working conditions and so on, while people further down the hierarchy must follow their orders - a non-democratic hierarchy with control and power in the hands of the ones at the top. Capitalist institutions are in other words private tyrannies

A society that is organized in a way that allows a little minority of super-wealthy individuals and totalitarian and powerful corporations to have the overwhelming control in society and the marked, is not free trade; on the contrary, that’s command economy and private tyranny.

Agreements taking place in this kind of system are far from being voluntary. In a capitalist class society, you have some people with huge wealth and recourses, and others with very few or no wealth and resources. It’s of course meaningless to talk about “voluntary agreements” in such a society because the ones owning the recourses, the wealth and the means of production etc, have much more power in society. That includes of course that they have the advantage and overwhelming power in a job hiring, negotiations and so on. So the non-owners - the workers - are trapped in a society in which they, in order to have a decent life or necessities in order to survive, must sell their labor to people who have much more power than they. This has very little to do with voluntary agreements, rather it’s submission to necessities.

So in a capitalist society, we have a system in which some people, because of their wealth and ownership, have an overwhelming power in society, including in the labor marked. The owners - the employers - then have much more influence and power when contracts and agreements are being made, whether it’s in relation to working conditions, salaries etc. etc.

capitalism is good for societies-some people are more productive than others and want more-----BUT NOT AT THE EXPENCE OF SOCIETIES --the problem is the extreme wealthy have organized into the biggest crime families in history-they control our politicians ,governments and the MEDIA-the media has done more harm than all of them combined----THE MEDIA HAS WILLFULLY FAILED TO WELL INFORM THE PEOPLE--a well informed people will make the biggest change of all--if the people knew what our politicians were doing for the extreme wealthy in the world at the expense of the people--if the people knew the truth---the worst things in history would not have ever happened-------our politicians through out history have served the extreme wealthy to the point millions have died----just to make the extreme wealthy more money and gain more power--------and the media has supported the lies to gain support from the people---------------------if this movement could do just one thing that would make the biggest difference it would be to tare down the media giants make them go out of business shut them down----and rebuild a no profit media that will serve the truth -a media that will well inform the people--a media that will hold everyone accountable------A WELL INFORMED PEOPLE WILL MAKE THE BIGGEST CHANGE OF ALL-------------the extreme wealthy will still be wealthy but their power over politicians and governments and their crimes against humanity will be minimized !---------------------this movement must be stream lined into just a few goals-------elections reform-tax paid elections--over hauling the tax system-and courts--our courts are corrupt from top to the bottom--- TARE DOWN THE MEDIA GIANTS AT ALL COST --AND REBUILD A NO PROFIT MEDIA TO SERVE THE TRUTH AND WELL INFORM THE PEOPLE AND HOLD EVERYONE ACCOUNTABLE---------- the media has helped all of this to happen--we can no longer trust the media --the media has become very dangerous to the greater good of societies and our children's future-------the media has willfully suppressed the truth--willfully failed to hold our politicians and the extreme wealthy accountable of their crimes against humanity so horrible we the people cant even imagine-------if the people really knew what our politicians have done for the extreme wealthy --if the people knew the truth-----??????????------we can no longer trust the media--we can no longer trust our politicians--------change the media change the world !

Yeah, so? That's not an excuse to keep an undemocratic and exploitative system

"they control our politicians ,governments and the MEDIA-the media has done more harm than all of them combined----THE MEDIA HAS WILLFULLY FAILED TO WELL INFORM THE PEOPLE"

Agreed.

"if this movement could do just one thing that would make the biggest difference it would be to tare down the media giants make them go out of business shut them down"

The media should (like all other institutions) be run democratically.

"and rebuild a no profit media that will serve the truth -a media that will well inform the people--a media that will hold everyone accountable------A WELL INFORMED PEOPLE WILL MAKE THE BIGGEST CHANGE OF ALL"

A well informed people is very important. We need to spread the message of libertarian socialism out to the public.

"this movement must be stream lined into just a few goals-------elections reform-tax paid elections--"

Sounds like reasonable short term goals

"TRUTH AND WELL INFORM THE PEOPLE AND HOLD EVERYONE ACCOUNTABLE---------- the media has helped all of this to happen--we can no longer trust the media"

The most infuencial media institutions are corportions. Corporations are illegitimate.

And where is capitalism mentioned in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence?

Wikipedia –
The period between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries is commonly described as mercantilism. This period, the Age of Discovery, was associated with geographic exploration being exploited by merchant overseas traders, especially from England and the Low Countries; the European colonization of the Americas; and the rapid growth in overseas trade. Mercantilism was a system of trade for profit, although commodities were still largely produced by non-capitalist production methods.

While some scholars see mercantilism as the earliest stage of capitalism, others argue that capitalism did not emerge until later. For example, Karl Polanyi, noted that "mercantilism, with all its tendency toward commercialization, never attacked the safeguards which protected [the] two basic elements of production—labor and land—from becoming the elements of commerce"; thus mercantilist attitudes towards economic regulation were closer to feudalist attitudes, "they disagreed only on the methods of regulation."
Moreover Polanyi argued that the hallmark of capitalism is the establishment of generalized markets for what he referred to as the "fictitious commodities": land, labor, and money. Accordingly, "not until 1834 was a competitive labor market established in England, hence industrial capitalism as a social system cannot be said to have existed before that date."

Capitalism is defined as an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. Wikipedia explains further,

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. Competitive markets, wage labor, capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, and personal finance are also considered capitalistic. There are multiple variants of capitalism, including laissez-faire, mixed economies, and state capitalism. Capitalism is considered to have applied in a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics, and culture. There is general agreement that capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.

Capitalism rising out of feudalism would seem consistent with the political structures of the 16th and 17th centuries and revolutions in United Kingdom, United States and France.
Feudalism as the founding Fathers knew it was abandoned over two centuries ago. It should be obvious that private owner of the means of production for profit doesn’t work in an industrialized society. Simply because the private owners are interested only in profits and not in providing for the common defense, general welfare, etc.

The preamble to the Constitution says –

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Immediately we see corporations and capitalists could not have possibly written this.

Everyone should know that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—” is a founding principle of our country. Also in the Declaration it is said,” all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Acknowledging that mercantilism was the prevailing economic system during the colonial period then outsourcing jobs, and off-shoring manufacturing from our country would be contrary to what the founding fathers had in mind. The current recession and unemployment are directly related to profits, private ownership, deregulation at the expense of everything in the foundation of this country.

Compounding interest is at the core of capitalism.
Usury had been prohibited for centuries. Under modern market free markets interest rates are unregulated. The practice of usury is endemic throughout the financial sector and is an area where strong reforms that make economic sense instead of obscene profiteering would provide huge measures of economic relief to ordinary people.

Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich claim to be defending the constitution, so this document is obviously a little vague.

I don't think people - americans included - should be so obsessed with their constritution. It should be the people living today that should get to decide what kind of society they should have, not some long since dead men.

Capitalism must be dismantled - no matter what the nation's constitution says.

How much control can individuals really have? From birth we are dependent. The species cannot propagate without mating pairs.
Hunting and gathering are performed better in groups. Farming and agriculture require social organization.

The wealthy and the owners of the means of production have more power in the workplace,at the stock exchange etc etc. The wealthy - especially the top 1% - have an enormous power of the economy; the economy affects us all, therefore they have power over our lives.

ok. Sarbanes-Oxley legislation was a response to a series of large corporate frauds that occurred between 2000–2002. The spectacular, highly-publicized frauds at Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco exposed significant problems with conflicts of interest and incentive compensation practices.

There are criminal penalties for failure of corporate officers to certify financial reports.

It is the tenth anniversary of the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, the landmark legislation intended to improve corporate governance in the wake of the 2001 bankruptcy of Enron. Here we are 10 years later, and not much has changed. Corporate governance scandals are still commonplace, Green Mountain Coffee, Chesapeake Energy, Wal-Mart, and Groupon being among the latest examples. The fact is that Sarbanes-Oxley was well-intentioned but didn’t address the real problem with corporate governance—boards of directors.

But we were discussing the issue of individuals having power in society. I was saying that the wealthy - especially the top 1% - have an enormous power of the economy; the economy affects us all, therefore they have power over our lives.

In your own words, do you agree with this, and do you wnat to change these existing power structures?

Sure. Which individuals? There are over 3000 millionaires and billionaires.That is less than 1%. What do they want and what are they doing? I thought America was becoming a land of real opportunity until the Republicans drove it into the ditch with S&L Scandal, Iran-Contra, Air Traffick Controller union busting, tax cuts for the rich, and attempts to shrink government.

Franklin Roosevelt had a solution that worked when Democrats ran government. Reagan's Presidency was when the government was captured. Welcome to the Banana Republic of the United States.

"ok. There are stories about the Russian Revolution about the state confiscating private property and putting the aristocracy in detention. This equates power with private property and in other words mob rule sounds a lot like this. If people don't have property rights now, what kind of rights do they have?"

I have very little positive to say about Leninism and the Soviet Union. Lenin turned that experiment into a dictatorship pretty fast.

I have however no problem with confiscating private property; but it must be done by the workers and the communities themselves. Today's property rights are not graven in stone, they can be changed to better ones in which people can be in control of their own lives and work.

Were you born in the United States? It is unconsitutional to confiscate private property even if the workers and communities are considering it. The Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment do not allow this. Capitalism may not be the problem. I think there is confusion between cronyism and what is now called capitalism, and what free market supply and demand is.

Today's property rights are partly grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Laissez-faire is tyranny because it's a society where the financial elite and the huge corporations have the overwhelming control in society. The institutions and workplaces are from the top-down tyrannies. That goes for the economy in general as well: Powerful non-elected people and corporations in charge - tyranny. Didn't you read the post?

People should be able to control their own lives and have a say in the things they're a part of and affected by. We should work for a classless society in which we share the wealth so that everyone can have a decent life.

But laissez faire is also the least regulated type of economy. Each business is allowed to do whatever it wants with few restrictions by the government. That is tyranny? It can be a probem with unsafe products being sold to the public. I could see how a democracy could tip into fasicsm with business running the government eventually.

ok. There are stories about the Russian Revolution about the state confiscating private property and putting the aristocracy in detention. This equates power with private property and in other words mob rule sounds a lot like this. If people don't have property rights now, what kind of rights do they have?

Please, let's focus on the issues, not on me. But no, I wasn't born in th US, nor do I live there.

"It is unconsitutional to confiscate private property even if the workers and communities are considering it."

If you like the idea of democracy - people having a say in their lives and affairs - that shouldn't matter. It must be the people living today that should get to decide what kind of society they should live in, not a piece of paper written by dead slave-owners.

"The Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment do not allow this."

If a vast majority wants to void the reactionary stuff in the constitution, than that's how it should be.

"Capitalism may not be the problem. I think there is confusion between cronyism and what is now called capitalism, and what free market supply and demand is."

Capitalism, whther it's "crony" state capitalism, or laissez faire, all the versions undermines democracy (cf. my original post) Lf Capitalism means tyranny, it means handling power over to private tyranny.

"Today's property rights are partly grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment."

The writers of the Constitution saw certain truths, but it takes time to implement them. It's a flexible document that may be changed.

Laissez faire is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from tariffs, government subsidies, and enforced monopolies, with only enough government regulations sufficient to protect property rights against theft and aggression.

In common usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of an oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls.

Well, since you weren't born in the USA it's rather difficult to calculate what democracy means to you. In the USA we have a Bill of Rights and other Amendments to Constitution that protect the citizenry.

I don't think the vast majority here want to void that stuff, but rather enforce it.

What would be done with the old capitalists? Could or should they be rehabilitated or sent into exile? You know if they remained in the society they would plot a counterrevolution and have plenty of cash, gold, silver, diamonds and luxuries stashed away to corrupt everyone they came in contact with. There are trillions of dollars unaccounted for such as the $2.3 trillion missing from our Pentagon since 9/10/ 2001.

Does the US govrnment know how to plan an economy today? I think FDR did, but noone since. To say we should have democratized economic institutions without solid succesful economic models doesn't work. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Would Cuba be prosperous if its economy was not being sabotaged by capitalists and US Govrnment?

Maybe hands and brains created wealth in the past, but why isn't wealth being created that way today? Currency speculation, LIBOR manipulation, cronyism and bailouts can create profits without any real work being accomplished. This involves global banking systems. When no work is being performed workers won't get paid and unemployment rises.

We're in the middle of a democratic crisis right now. The governments have been captured. We have choices between Obama, Romney and unknown candidates.

Even with the current level of regulation, which is too much for Tea Party and Republicans, fraud is an increasing problem.Government lacks the expertise and the manpower after being "shrinked" for over 30 years. Increasing SS may not be the answer. A truer free market that obeys the laws of supply and demand should be tried before changing anything else.

So you agree that all these wealthy individual have an overwhelming power in the economy. An if we like the idea of democracy then we should dismanle the system that allows non-elected rich guys to have more power in society than you and I. Capitalism must be abolished.

Their power hasn't been proven. With so much wealth why are more workers sinking into poverty? Why haven't the thousands of multimillionaires in the USA offered their services to the 50 states to grow the US economy and improve quality of life for all Americans? Having a lot of money doesn't mean enough jobs will be created. The country needs much higher taxes on the rich and incentives to create more jobs. Some creativity is required to solve the problem. Do you understand how wealth is created? Is the force driving the economy a collective of small businesses? Businesses large and small need loans and the banks are not lending. It's not a higher tax burden or Obamacare holding the country back it's tight credit, unavailable credit, high rent, increased cost of living in general that come with the cost of money, LIBOR manupulation, etc.

"I noticed that the wicked usually hang together even when they hate each other and this is their strength, whereas the good tend to be more scattered and this is their weakness." -Yevgeny Yevtushenko (1932- )

Giving workers the ability to vote on things they are not qualified to give an opinion on does not make an economy democratic.

The only way to make an economy democratic is by deliberately allocating income in a way that minimizes differences in income.

Here is why.

Democracy is a Greek word. But it is not a Greek word for "voting" or "mob rule" or "majority wins". It is Greek for "people power". It means power rests with everyone equally. And a modern liberal democracy means a society based on equal political power and equal freedom.

Since everything you do in society requires money, your income determines how much political power you have and determines how much freedom you have.

A person with $1 billion has 50,000 times more power than a person with $20,000 to get someone elected to government or to lobby government to their cause or to use the media to lobby the public to their cause. And they have 50,000 times more freedom to live how they want - such as to live in whatever house or neighborhood they want, to drive any car they want, to attend any school they want, to get any medical treatment they want, to pursue any hobby they want, to travel to any place they want or to work any job they want.

A society where some have 50,000 times more political power and freedom than others is not democratic.

In order to have democracy, a society where power rests with everyone equally, income must rest with everyone equally. But income is also used as an incentive to get people to do difficult work and give their maximum effort.

So the only way to have a society that is democratic and the only way to also have an economy that works well, is to have a system where differences in income are limited by law to just what is necessary to get people to do difficult work and to get people to give their maximum effort.

"Giving workers the ability to vote on things they are not qualified to give an opinion on does not make an economy democratic."

I answered this in another comment here.

"The only way to make an economy democratic is by deliberately allocating income in a way that minimizes differences in income."

You're too hung up on income. What we must work for is a real participatory democracy where people take part in controlling their own lives and work.

"Democracy is a Greek word. But it is not a Greek word for "voting" or "mob rule" or "majority wins". It is Greek for "people power"

I am aware of what the word originated from, and there are many different understandings of how democracy - this people power - should look like. I think an important principle is that you should have a say in the things you're apart of, and that must of course include the workplace.

"Since everything you do in society requires money, your income determines how much political power you have and determines how much freedom you have."

And we should try to create a society where money is less dominant and democracy is more dominant.

"A society where some have 50,000 times more political power and freedom than others is not democratic."

Agreed.

"In order to have democracy, a society where power rests with everyone equally, income must rest with everyone equally."

It's imprtant to fiight for more income equality, but there's more to creating a just democratic socity than just focusing on income. Eventually also making more an more (at least necessary) services and goods free/almost free when you need them is also a good idea

"But income is also used as an incentive to get people to do difficult work and give their maximum effort."

We should work for a soceity where work to a large extent comes out of your own creativity, desires and wants. Work that noone wants to do must be shared or given remuneration for.

You are too hung up on giving people jobs they don't want to do and that they are not qualified to do. A construction worker gets zero benefit from having to also manage the company he works for in addition to doing construction. And the company suffers because it winds up being run by unqualified managers.

Income is the most important thing that matters. It determines your freedom, political power, quality of life and standard of living.

Workers want more income. They don't want additional jobs to do.

.

"people take part in controlling their own lives and work"

People need high paying jobs, not management jobs they don't want to do and are not qualified to do. Voting at work doesn't give you additional control over your life or job.

.

"you should have a say in the things you're apart of, and that must of course include the workplace."

People should have a say over their particular job and most managers are going to actively solicit their opinion. But they should not have any say over any other job!! What specific say do you want them to have and what benefit does that serve? You have yet to explain!

.

"Eventually also making more an more (at least necessary) services and goods free/almost free when you need them is also a good idea"

People don't need free or subsidized goods when they are guaranteed a job that pays at least $115k. We don't need welfare when everyone is rich.

"You are too hung up on giving people jobs they don't want to do and that they are not qualified to do."

This is not true. People shouldn't be forced to work, and when training/education is necessary then that of course must be given.

"A construction worker gets zero benefit from having to also manage the company he works for in addition to doing construction. And the company suffers because it winds up being run by unqualified managers."

Necessary management can be shared by rotation or workers electing one of the participants. Im not suggesting harder working conditions - on the contrary.

"Income is the most important thing that matters. It determines your freedom, political power, quality of life and standard of living."

But it shouldn't be that way. We should work for a free and democratic society where we control our workplaces and communities, and where people get access the necessary goods and services when they need them.

"Workers want more income"

In the current society that should be something the workers should work for, but our end goal - the society we should strive to create - should be a classless society where people contribute based on their own creativity and wants, not cash.

"Voting at work doesn't give you additional control over your life or job."

Yes it does. It makes people have a say in how their workplace is being run.

.

"But they should not have any say over any other job!! What specific say do you want them to have and what benefit does that serve? You have yet to explain!"

So you don't think that people should get to have a say in the things they're affected by? You can't be serious.

People should get to have a say in the things they're a part of and affected by. That's just logical

"People don't need free or subsidized goods when they are guaranteed a job that pays at least $115k. We don't need welfare when everyone is rich."

We should work to create a society that is much less obsessed with money.

Whenever I ask for specific reasons why unqualified people should do unqualified jobs, you answer with "People should get to have a say in the things they're a part of and affected by. That's just logical."

That does not answer the question.

I am affected by what happens to the home I am having built. So should I have a say in how the home is engineered?

I am affected by what happens when I have surgery. So should I have a say in how the surgery is done?

I am affected by what happens when I fly in an airplane. So should I have a say in what materials are used to build the airplane?

You said people will be trained in management if necessary. So now everyone who works at a large company must get an MBA?

Should we require everyone who wants to buy a house become an architect? Everyone who gets surgery should get an MD? Everyone who flies regularly should get an engineering degree?

You don't see the absurdity of what you are saying?

And after all this, you still have not solved any social problems. You will still have unemployment, still have people who can't afford to go to school and still have enormous income inequality because there are huge differences in financial success between companies and you are still allocating income based on bargaining power.

"I am paying attention. What I am claiming is that you can't kind of have a price and kind of charge people and kind of pay incomes. That makes no sense and is completely unworkable!"

Once again, I want a society with participatory democracy; a society where the people are in control of their own lives and work. Details are for the participants to decide. That's fully workable.

"Unless you sketch it out in a form that you can demonstrate is workable, you are not going to convince anyone that it works and is better than capitalism."

Libertarian Socialims has to a large extent proven to work very well.

"A feel-good story of everyone working together and nobody caring about money is not going to cut it."

Statements like this shows that you have what seems to be a pretty warped view on what human beings are. Human beings arnt about money, they're about creativity, care for others, solidarity, coopertation.

.

"..you need a law that dictates how national income is to be allocated otherwise you will wind up with vast, increasing inequality between workers, between firms and between communities"

No that's not what Libertarian Socialism is about.

"Running an efficient company, by using the least amount of resources to complete a particular task, has nothing to do with democracy or worker rights!"

I didn't say that. I said that democracy and workers' rights are more important.

"I am getting my education through this debate, that is why I am asking questions!!"

So you want me to teach you about libertarian socialsim? Well, if you're so interested why don't you google it, or read Rocker, Kropotkin, or Chomsky ec instead, They've done a much better job at this.

That's not all I said. I explained how workers' self management could be done.

"I am affected by what happens to the home I am having built. So should I have a say in how the home is engineered?"

Sure (and I'm pretty sure you want the carpenters, surgeons etc to do the work professionally) There's no contradiction between workers' self management and performing work duties in a professional and responsible manner. Tasks must be organized in a way the participants feel is most comfortable; management can be shared/rotated or participants can be elected, and training must be given when needed. I'm not suggeting that everyone should take part in all work-tasks of course; the point is that decitions must be under democratic control, mainly of the workplace and community.

I have now observed on several occations that you accuse me of having opinions that I don't have (Straw man argument) Please let me do the job of expressing what my opinions are.

So if people will only participate to the degree which they want and since we already know people don't want to become engineers in order to buy a house or become doctors in order to have surgery, they most likely will not want to get a similarly advanced education in management in order to get a job.

So I think nearly everyone would choose not to also become a manager.

And you also did not answer the most important question of all:

So what have you accomplished?

You still have not solved any social problems that workers and others care about. You will still have unemployment, still have people who can't afford to go to school and still have enormous income inequality because there are huge differences in financial success between companies and you are still allocating income based on bargaining power.

"So if people will only participate to the degree which they want and since we already know people don't want to become engineers in order to buy a house or become doctors in order to have surgery, they most likely will not want to get a similarly advanced education in management in order to get a job."

Workers and communities are perfectly able to run the production themselves democratically. We know that because we have seen many examples of it:

"You still have not solved any social problems that workers and others care about. You will still have unemployment, still have people who can't afford to go to school and still have enormous income inequality because there are huge differences in financial success between companies and you are still allocating income based on bargaining power."

You're wrong. A free, democratic, Anarcho-Syndicalist society would be an egalitarian society where workers rights and conditions were strong, where the people thru democratic process created a productive society, and with things like free education. It would be a real participatory democracy where people are in control of their own life work and community.

There is no question you can have worker self management. But there is no evidence that the company would perform better than if it had qualified managers expert in that task.

It might be workable (although not better so I still don't understand the point) for a small company. But managing a large company requires an MBA, so you can learn advanced skills, and it is completely impractical to require that of all the employees at a large company.

So it is not possible at a large company.

The most efficient system is a division of labor where people specialize in certain jobs because that specialist is going to do that job better than someone who is not a specialist.

If management by employee voting worked better than management by hired experts dedicated to that specific task, private companies today would use that system.

.

"A free, democratic, Anarcho-Syndicalist society would be an egalitarian society where workers rights and conditions were strong"

How does some employee being able to vote on management decisions result in full employment?

How does some employee being able to vote on management decisions result in free education? If you vote to force your company to pay for the education of all its employees, your expenses will be higher than your competitor's. So your prices will be higher. So that will force your company out of business.

How does that vote eliminate the wealth inequality between his company and the company that performs 500 times better which will subsequently give their employees similarly greater wealth?

How does some employee being able to vote on management decisions result in even eliminating the inequality between workers of their own company? If a company is going out of business, those workers would vote to lower their own pay in order to pay some employees a much higher income if those other employees were able to save their company and their job. Lower pay is better than no pay. So you would wind up with increasing income inequality just like today.

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say you worked at the Mets baseball company and voted to pay no worker no more than 10 times more.

The Yankees baseball company is floundering. It needs revenue. It figures out that winning baseball games will obviously increase sales and save the company. So it decides to pay its baseball players 10 times more than what the Mets pay.

All the best baseball players sign with the Yankees and now the Mets, with the worst team in baseball, are on the verge of bankruptcy. The workers vote to pay baseball players more in order to save their jobs.

Do you see where I am going with this? The need to stay profitable will force companies to continually increase income inequality.

This dynamic that played out between the Mets and Yankees will play out between every company in every industry.

Having workers manage their companies by vote will not make their company better run, will not guarantee everyone employment, will not guarantee everyone a free education, and will not eliminate unfair income inequality.

Only passing a law will give everyone employment, free education and eliminate unfair inequality. And you don't need employees running their companies by vote in order to pass a law.

"There is no question you can have worker self management. But there is no evidence that the company would perform better than if it had qualified managers expert in that task."

Actually worker owned and managed businesses have shown to be very efficient and well managed. But efficiency shouldn't be the only argement for how we organize society. An even more important one is that people should be in control of their own lives, and that brings us back to democracy. Democracy should be the core in any decent society.

"and it is completely impractical to require that of all the employees at a large company."

I haven't said that all workers must do management work in all workplaces.

"How does some employee being able to vote on management decisions result in full employment?"

An anarcho-syndicalist society would be a highly organized society where things like that would be prioritized. Why would it not be?

"How does that vote eliminate the wealth inequality between his company and the company that performs 500 times better giving their employees similarly greater wealth?"

It would be a classless society.

"If a company is going out of business, those workers would vote to lower their own pay in order to pay some employees a much higher income if those other employees were able to save their company and their job. Lower pay is better than no pay. So you would wind up with increasing income inequality just like today."

In this society people would create a society where we focused much less on money and pay, but instead human creativity, and people having access to necessities when they need them.

I think it boils down to the issue of democracy. I think it's pretty reasonable, logic and obvious that people should have a say in their affairs and community. Creating a real participatory democracy is the way to go.

I think we have somewhat similar goals. But I think your idea that the way to get there is by replacing managers with voting employees is completely absurd. It won't change anything. The economic system is the problem, not company managers.

.

"Actually worker owned and managed businesses have shown to be very efficient and well managed"

No they haven't. Prove it.

.

"But efficiency shouldn't be the only argement for how we organize society."

Efficiency in managing a business is the only thing that is important. Give me one example where inefficiency is ok.

.

" An even more important one is that people should be in control of their own lives"

Replacing managers with employees who can vote does not give people control over their lives!!! Give me one example. And if it is a large company, their 1 vote probably doesn't even give them much control over their company.

.

"I haven't said that all workers must do management work in all workplaces. "

So you will wind up with exactly what you have now. Companies will have a small handful of people as managers. So you haven't changed anything.

.

"An anarcho-syndicalist society would be a highly organized society where things like [full employment] would be prioritized. Why would it not be?"

Explain to me specifically how a janitor or any other worker voting on management issues will give rise to full employment. It makes no sense.

.

"It would be a classless society."

Explain to me specifically how a janitor or any other worker voting on management issues will give rise to the end of classes. It makes no sense.

Class is based on income. The only way to have a classless society is to pay everyone equally. Are you telling me that giving workers the ability to vote will wind up with every worker getting paid equally even if it means they will be unemployed because they can't compete with other companies who are not paying everyone equally?

Read my last comment. It will never happen.

.

"In this society people would create a society where we focused much less on money and pay"

Why would the ability to vote on management issues all of a sudden make people not care about money and pay? It makes no sense.

"But I think your idea that the way to get there is by replacing managers with voting employees is completely absurd. It won't change anything. The economic system is the problem, not company managers."

I do want to change the system; I want to abolish capitalism... In the society I want - Libertarian Socialsm - we'd have a free, democratic society without capitalism and other forms of tyrannical systems.

"No they haven't. Prove it."

I have given you a link several times now, that'll give you lots of info. Haven't you watched it yet? Please watch:

.
"Efficiency in managing a business is the only thing that is important. Give me one example where inefficiency is ok."

You really believe that? Does that go for all other working tasks in society as well, and why/why not?

"Replacing managers with employees who can vote does not give people control over their lives!!!"

Of course it does. If people are given the right to control their own workplace that means that they get more control of their affairs, hence their lives.

"So you will wind up with exactly what you have now."

No, institutions would be under worker and community control; that's completely differetn than what we have now.

"Explain to me specifically how a janitor or any other worker voting on management issues will give rise to full employment. It makes no sense."

If the institutions were controled by the workers and community, they could decide democratically what kind of remuneration is given.

"Class is based on income. The only way to have a classless society is to pay everyone equally."

A better solution is working for a society less obsessed with money, but where we organize to a large extent based on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

"Why would the ability to vote on management issues all of a sudden make people not care about money and pay? It makes no sense."

If we create a classless society without capitalism, but instead with democracy built from below based on solidarity, where we focus on human creativity and need, greed and the worship for money would more or less vanish.

You haven't really provided any valid arguments. I don't know if that is because you are just doing a bad job of selling libertarian socialism or because libertarian socialism is not a well thought-out system.

Critics of socialism say it is not based in reality and simply not workable. And when you say things like we don't need a law that eliminates income inequality, all we need is to "work for a society less obsessed with money", you play right into the critics' hands. Nobody is going to take you seriously.

.

"I do want to change the system; I want to abolish capitalism"

But how exactly do you plan on doing that?

I think the only way to do that is to organize the workers into a single union and then demand the change.

Most importantly, I think workers will want to join this union because we are demanding that income be allocated based on how hard you work instead of based on how much bargaining power you have in the market. Most workers will think that is fair. And they will want to do this because allocating income in this way will raise the minimum income to $115k which is significantly more than what most of them are making. And most workers want to make more money.

Giving employees the ability to vote in a company is not going to somehow magically abolish capitalism! It is also will not persuade anyone to want to do this.

People will see that as extra work that they have no interest in doing. And then when you follow up with the claim that nobody is going to no longer care about money once you start voting on management issues, they will rightfully find the whole idea laughable.

I went through 7 minutes of it. It was just a bunch of people claiming, just like you, that replacing managers with voting employees will make society better without explaining why. They did not explain how it will employ everyone or how it will abolish capitalism or how it will eliminate income inequality.

Just making claims and not giving any reason for that claim being true is not persuasive.

I am familiar with all the people in that video. I don't have a link, but in other videos people called both Gar and Wolffe out on the claim that giving employees the ability to vote on management issues will solve any social problem. They correctly said that it will not end unemployment and since those employee managed companies are still competing against each other in a market, it will not eliminate income inequality. So it hasn't solved anything.

They both essentially responded the same way. They said employee run or owned companies will not solve those problems unless they are followed up with a political solution.

In other words, they think the best way to change society is to take over companies and once you have taken over enough companies, you will have the power to enact political changes that somehow eliminate income inequality and give everyone a job.

So unlike you, they at least understand that only a law will create a classless society and abolish capitalism and actually change things in society. But I think their tactic is absurd.

Only a union of a majority of the workers making these demands and going on strike if the demands are not met will have the power to change society to the degree we want. And only offering workers significantly higher income will get them to want to participate in that union.

"And when you say things like we don't need a law that eliminates income inequality"

I don't mind a law that eliminates income inequality. But that must be decided democratically by the participants.

"all we need is to "work for a society less obsessed with money", you play right into the critics' hands."

I don't agree with that. I think a more solidaric society focusing on people's needs, rather than money is something a lot of people would like. I don't care what critics are going to say. I'll express my opinions no matter what.

"I think the only way to do that is to organize the workers into a single union and then demand the change."

Organized workers, with strong unions and frequent striking - including huge general strikes - are very important.

"Giving employees the ability to vote in a company is not going to somehow magically abolish capitalism! It is also will not persuade anyone to want to do this."

Well, a very important facor is that people must take over the instituions in their communities. when private ownership on the economic institutions has been dismantled workers and communities can organize a democratic society where they are in control of their own lives and work.

"And then when you follow up with the claim that nobody is going to no longer care about money once you start voting on management issues, they will rightfully find the whole idea laughable."

I don't think so. When we have a free, egalitarian and solidaric society, people will become less obsessed with money, and instead focus on human creativity and need.

"I went through 7 minutes of it. It was just a bunch of people claiming, just like you, that replacing managers with voting employees will make society better without explaining why."

Look thru the whole thing. You actually just missed it. Fast forward to where you stopped.

"So it hasn't solved anything."

It would solve a lot of things. It would mean an end to capitalism, and a real democratic society in which people control their own lives..

"In other words, they think the best way to change society is to take over companies and once you have taken over enough companies, you will have the power to enact political changes that somehow eliminate income inequality and give everyone a job."

Sounds like a good idea.

"Only a union of a majority of the workers making these demands and going on strike if the demands are not met will have the power to change society to the degree we want. And only offering workers significantly higher income will get them to want to participate in that union."

"I don't mind a law that eliminates income inequality. But that must be decided democratically by the participants."

And nothing going on in the world today tells you that this idea may not work out like you want?

You think the wealth inequality in the US came by way of authoritarian control? It didn't. It came by people voting for it.

There is nothing stopping the public today from voting in candidates that will abolish class and make everyone equal by allocating wealth equally. But that hasn't happened. You know why? Because the wealthy use their wealth to convince everyone else it is fair.

And that is exactly what they will continue to do in your libertarian socialist society.

Through the voting process, you will end up with a system exactly like the one we have today where a few people get rich and they use their wealth to convince everyone to keep it going.

Democracy is NOT voting. It is equal power. Just getting people to vote on more things doesn't make society democratic and certainly doesn't solve any of the problems in the world.

Getting a majority to vote on killing the minority is not democracy. Getting the majority to vote on keeping wealth inequality is not democracy.

It almost seems like you're not paying attention. This would be a society where a lot of goods and services were free/close to free, pay/remuneartion would be much less dominant.

"How would you even figure out what is free and what is not?"

I don't think we should sketch out the "prefect society" now, the communities themselves must work out the details when the time comes.

"How is that more efficient than giving everything a price and giving everyone an income and just letting people buy whatever they want?"

Societies should focus on more things than just efficiency. There are more important things like democracy, good workers' rights etc.

"(..)The former requires money, the latter seems pointless."

I've explained on several occations the system I want. It seems we're getting nowhere.

"The point I am making is that unless you deliberately put in place rules that dictate how consumption should be allocated (by assigning a price to everything, giving everyone an income and dictating that those incomes be allocated with limited inequality), equal allocation will not just magically pop up on its own, inequality will flourish and your libertarian socialist society will never materialize."

This statement shows that yo know very little about the system you're criticising. It might be smart to read about it a little bit before you bash at it.

"This would be a society where a lot of goods and services were free/close to free, pay/remuneartion would be much less dominant"

I am paying attention. What I am claiming is that you can't kind of have a price and kind of charge people and kind of pay incomes. That makes no sense and is completely unworkable!

Are you just going to make up random prices? What point would that serve? You either measure the cost of a good and service and price it according to its correct cost or you don't.

.

"I don't think we should sketch out the "prefect society" now"

Unless you sketch it out in a form that you can demonstrate is workable, you are not going to convince anyone that it works and is better than capitalism.

The majority of people will never want to overturn the entire modern world based on an idea that is not worked out in sufficient detail and has a significant basis for being superior to capitalism. A feel-good story of everyone working together and nobody caring about money is not going to cut it.

.

"the communities themselves must work out the details when the time comes"

When you begin to look at the details, you will find that you need to do most of what I am proposing here. You need to measure the cost of everything you produce, you need to pay out an income equal to the total cost of everything you produce so supply meets demand and you need a law that dictates how national income is to be allocated otherwise you will wind up with vast, increasing inequality between workers, between firms and between communities.

.

"There are more important things [than efficiency] like democracy, good workers' rights etc."

Running an efficient company, by using the least amount of resources to complete a particular task, has nothing to do with democracy or worker rights!

.

"It might be smart to read about it a little bit before you bash at it."

I am getting my education through this debate, that is why I am asking questions!!

By saying you need a law that dictates how income should be allocated and that income will not just allocate itself equally on its own is a valid critique. Instead of complaining that I am bashing, defend your position with facts or arguments.

I don't agree with what you're suggesting. People want to work - especially if they can control their work. If there is some work that noone wnats to do, then that should be shared or given some kind of remuneration.

"I would say that the most important thing by far is how income is distributed."

I also think working for equal income is important, epsecially in a short term perspective But I don't think we'll get any further - I want a certain type of system, you want another one.

"Income determines your political power, economic power, freedom, quality of life and standard of living. So it is more important than anything else."

Sure, but my point is that it doesn't have, and shouldn't have to be that way. When the people have taken the power back from the wealthy they can create a better society, much less focused on money.

"the people with most money will drown out the people with little money, and you will continue to have the same social problems we have today."

You're making no sense. Libertarian Socialism is a classless society with a direct participatory democracy on all levels. You know I'm a libertaria Socialist, so why are you saying these things?

"People want to work - especially if they can control their work. If there is some work that noone wnats to do, then that should be shared or given some kind of remuneration. "

That is not a workable system.

Some people get paid and some don't? How exactly would that work? Some things would have a price and some won't? How would you even figure out what is free and what is not?

How is that more efficient than giving everything a price and giving everyone an income and just letting people buy whatever they want?

.

"my point is that it doesn't have, and shouldn't have to be that way. When the people have taken the power back from the wealthy they can create a better society, much less focused on money."

Your claim that people will no longer care about how much they consume once they are able to vote more seems absurd. Do you have any evidence for this?

Is your goal a fair and equal society or the elimination of people caring about what they consume?

The former requires money, the latter seems pointless.

.

" You know I'm a libertaria Socialist, so why are you saying these things?"

The point I am making is that unless you deliberately put in place rules that dictate how consumption should be allocated (by assigning a price to everything, giving everyone an income and dictating that those incomes be allocated with limited inequality), equal allocation will not just magically pop up on its own, inequality will flourish and your libertarian socialist society will never materialize.

I was thinking the same thing. I think we also might have misunderstood each other on some occations.

Is your end goal a society where everyone gets to vote on company management issues and in other areas you think are important or is the end goal a classless society where people are free to live however they want?"

People should have a democratic say in the things they're a part and are affected by, so workplace democracy would be very important, yes.

Well being "free to live however they want" is pretty vague, though. There has to be collective rights, but also individual rights. I think this video explains pretty well how individual freedom and collective democratic process can be perfectly integrated:

"Does a classless society mean a society where wealth and income are equal or can you have a classless society with wealth and income inequality?"

A classless society is a society where no one is born into a social class. There could some variations in remuneration, but they'd minimal. There is a debate among libertarian socialists over how much money circulation there should be. I personally want a society with as much free/close to free services and goods as possible. I don't think we should be s obsessed with income when a real participatory democracy has been well established, the important thing is to work towards a society based not equal remuneration, but that people get what they need wneh they need it.

"If you get all the voting you want but society still has a lot of wealth and income inequality would that be acceptable because it is what people voted for?"

That wouldn't be a good enough society in my view, In asituation like than one just has to continue convincing people to change their minds.

"Is your economic system a system where companies are collectively run by employees and their income depends on the financial success of the company?"

The whole purpose of income is to incentivize people to work. So what I argue is that since the only economic reason for paying 1 person more than another is to get them to do undesirable work or give their maximum effort that differences should be limited to only what is necessary to get them to do undesirable work or give their maximum effort.

What those income differences should be can be easily tested and determined scientifically.

So we agree on this.

.

"I don't think we should be s obsessed with income when a real participatory democracy has been well established, the important thing is to work towards a society based not equal remuneration, but that people get what they need wneh they need it."

Here is where we differ.

I would say that the most important thing by far is how income is distributed.

Income determines your political power, economic power, freedom, quality of life and standard of living. So it is more important than anything else.

It is far more important than having the ability to vote on a lot of things.

If you do not have a system that deliberately allocates income in the way I explain above, you will not have a socialist society or a democratic one, your vote will wind up being as meaningless as it is today because the people with most money will drown out the people with little money, and you will continue to have the same social problems we have today.

.

And I think another part where we differ is not only on the importance of income allocation but on how it will come about.

Unless your primary goal is to write a law that dictates exactly how income should be allocated, and says income should be allocated in the way I say at the top of this comment, you will wind up with enormous income inequality and a society similar to today's regardless of how much more direct voting people have.

"Politicians get elected based largely on keeping the status quo because the wealthy have used their wealth to convince the public that this is the best we can do."

Agree. The type of representative democracy we have in the West today isn't working. We need to replace it with a real participatory nad direct democracy.

"You are making my point for me!"

So we agree on that one. Good.

"Your system of voting does not work because you need to be wealthy in order to change the minds of 300 million people spread across the country."

Just so we're clear. I'm not in favor of voting for politicians. I'm for a libertarian socialist society. This society must come into place by people organizing their communities and eventually taking the power back from the private owners, and creating a real participatory, more direct democracy.

"You have a lot of cognitive dissonance!"

What are you talking about?

"If the people are not voting to eliminate wealth inequality today (for all the reasons I have been giving in the last few comments which will not go away in your libertarian socialist system), what makes you think they will vote for inequality once they can vote on company management issues!?!?!"

We must convince the majority in our communities to take power back, eliminated capitalism and build a democratic society based on soldairty.

I think we might be going in circles. So let me ask some direct questions that get to the heart of the debate.

Is your end goal a society where everyone gets to vote on company management issues and in other areas you think are important or is the end goal a classless society where people are free to live however they want?

Does a classless society mean a society where wealth and income are equal or can you have a classless society with wealth and income inequality?

If you get all the voting you want but society still has a lot of wealth and income inequality would that be acceptable because it is what people voted for?

Is your economic system a system where companies are collectively run by employees and their income depends on the financial success of the company?

If so, how specifically would this end with a society where wealth and income was equal?

What is your plan for achieving this society?

What have you done or are willing to do to help in reaching that goal?

"The financial elite have been buying politicians for a long time now. The business elites staffs the government to a large extent."

Let's first make it very clear what buying politicians means.

Politicians do not run on a platform of making everyone equal financially so there are no classes, get elected to office on that platform and then take bribes from the rich to break their promise of making everyone equal.

That is not what is going on.

Politicians get elected based largely on keeping the status quo because the wealthy have used their wealth to convince the public that this is the best we can do.

The public does not want to vote in politicians who will make everything equal.

.

"If you don't have huge corporate backing you'll never win."

You are making my point for me!

Your system of voting does not work because you need to be wealthy in order to change the minds of 300 million people spread across the country.

This is exactly the point Aristotle made. Aristotle said voting will always result in the elite's ideas getting enacted because they are the only ones with the resources to sway public opinion. And the elite will enact policies that favor them, not everyone else.

Aristotle's democracy was a system where people were selected to serve by lot, just like we pick people for jury duty. That will always result in a representative sample of the public at large making decisions so that they enact policies that serve the public at large.

.

"Huh? There are no wealthy people in a Libertarian Socialist society. How did you miss that?"

You have a lot of cognitive dissonance!

When I said you must enact a law to eliminate wealth inequality and that is the ONLY way wealth inequality is going to go away, you said, "I don't mind a law that eliminates income inequality. But that must be decided democratically by the participants."

If the people are not voting to eliminate wealth inequality today (for all the reasons I have been giving in the last few comments which will not go away in your libertarian socialist system), what makes you think they will vote for inequality once they can vote on company management issues!?!?! And if they don't vote to pass a law that eliminates inequality, how is inequality going to magically disappear?

But I don't understand how workers voting on business decisions will make businesses better (people voting on business decisions they have no expertise in will make the business worse, not better) or how that will fix the problems of unemployment and income inequality.

Democracy means equal freedom and equal political power. It does not mean voting.

First of all, I think you're underestimating the workers. History has shown that workers' self management can work very well (click on "Occupy your Workplace" for more info) Secondly, it's about workers controlling their own workplace, but it's also about people controlling their communities. It is an important principle that people should be in control of their own lives and communities. A real participatory democracy is therefore what we must strive for.

History has shown that division of labor works best. People trained in management will be better managers than untrained people voting just like people trained in engineering, computers, construction, medicine, etc. will be better at their jobs than untrained people voting.

What benefit does a construction worker get when you saddle him with more job responsibility by telling him that not only does he have to do construction but he also has to do the extra work of managing the company he works for?

When it comes to management, this work must be done by the workers themselves It can be done by worksharing/rotation and/or workers electing someone best suited. Work must be done based on voluntary agreements. Decitionmaking over production must be decided by the ones participating. People should have a say in the things they're a part of.

It is in the government's best interest to loan out the money, (the fed is not the government) otherwise we end up with securitization fraud to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars.

We have all been brainwashed into thinking that interest rate charges are part of the economy. Interest rate charges are part of a growing economy, but economies cannot grow forever, no matter what the ivy league elite say.

Ponzie schemes eventually run out of ways to reinvest money, and that is what the 2000's have been about. Once satellite technology took hold and has basically been causing blue collar
salaries to plummet, interest rate charges became pointless, actually harmful.

That is the conundrum. The richest of the rich simply give the money out and take the healthy return in the form of interest rate or dividends. However, eventually, there money is not needed to make more money, there money is either needed to BUY THINGS, or, to sit in a bank earning 1.0 percent interest.

Interest rate dividen payments should be inverted. The poorest with the least savings should get the highest interest rate returns on their deposits, the wealthiest the lowest.

"It is in the government's best interest to loan out the money, (the fed is not the government) otherwise we end up with securitization fraud to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars."

The very reason why the Fed is private is so the government won't be in charge of loaning out money. Can you imagine Congress becoming bankers, deciding interest rates and to whom it should or should not loan to?

"interest rate charges are part of the economy. Interest rate charges are part of a growing economy" ? This doesn't make sense.

"Ponzie schemes eventually run out of ways to reinvest money, and that is what the 2000's have been about. Once satellite technology took hold and has basically been causing blue collar salaries to plummet, interest rate charges became pointless, actually harmful."

What Ponzie schemes run out of eventually is new investors money. What are you referring to?

Blue collar salaries have been stagnant since the 70's. The erosion of union membership was largely responsible for lower wages. How did satellite technology effect wages?

"It is in the government's best interest to loan out the money, (the fed is not the government) otherwise we end up with securitization fraud to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars.

We have all been brainwashed into thinking that interest rate charges are part of the economy. Interest rate charges are part of a growing economy, but economies cannot grow forever, no matter what the ivy league elite say.

Ponzie schemes eventually run out of ways to reinvest money, and that is what the 2000's have been about. Once satellite technology took hold and has basically been causing blue collar
salaries to plummet, interest rate charges became pointless, actually harmful."

Here is your comment verbatim in quotes.

The very reason why the Fed is private is so the government won't be in charge of loaning out money. Can you imagine Congress becoming bankers, deciding interest rates and to whom it should or should not loan to? Can you explain why you think the government would do a better job lending out money than the fed?

Dealing with interest rates don't change the undemocratic factors in the economy. If you like the idea of people having the right to control their own life and work, you should be in favor of a real participatory democracy.

Our main focus should be the things I talked about in the forum-post: Working to create a more democratic society. The important thing is that people get be in control of their own lives and work. Don't you agree?

Interest rate charges create perpetual debt that never reduces even as income levels are dropping.

And those 100,000 dollar jobs and higher, they are becoming temporary jobs. They may last for a couple of years, but if you did the job correctly, your reward is an app that replaces you and your high paying job.

If people organized and managed to make the society and the institutions more democratic, many of these cases would be avoided. When we want to change the society, the main focus must be on the ones who are in power: the corporations, the CEOs, and financial elite.

The democracy is in the money. You have money, you begin to choose how to live. A brake is being applied to people's ability to save what they have already made in the form of crushing debt and interest rate charges that make it impossible to pay down a debt.

Even a 100,000 dollar loan can eventually be paid off, but not if every month new interest rate charges, penalties and fees are being tacked on.

to some degree we do choose what path we take. While money may not be equally available to everyone, most places in the U.S. do support everyone's access to power, electricity, water, and waste disposal, and that is a form of democracy as well.

It's going to take time to dismantle capitalism, but it must happen bacause the system is not sustainable. Do you agree that people should be able to participate in their affairs and have a democratic say in the things they're a part of and affect them?

Have you ever gone to a local town hall meeting? Pretty much everybody has their minds already made up and they care the most about what affects their lawn then they do the bigger picture.

Back in the early 90's I suggested that car pool lanes could generate additional monies by allowing motorist to pay for single driver access as well. I was told the federal government would not allow such a plan.

Now in California, they have either started or will start selling access to the car pool lanes. It took 20 years for my idea to end up happening, and of course, I got no credit for it.

Lending money is like renting it out. If you rent out a tractor, a rental fee is charged. If you rent out your money, a rental fee called interest is charged.

Both renting and loaning are valid services. A fee should be paid for the services provided.

How the wealthy become rich is by trading one hour of their time for two hours of your time. When you purchase an item in a nice package from a wealthy company you can be sure you are trading more of your labor for less of theirs.

The problem is there is no real competition on loaning money. I would prefer to get a government loan, but they have chosen to hide behind the fed, who in turn hides behind some of the wealthiest billionaires on the planet.

I'd rather borrow from the government interest free, hey, just like they do!

Good point. Kind of like borrowing a tractor for free then renting it out to someone else. Of course the initial loaner loses out, and in the case of the Fed loaning out the money for free, it is likely the people will in the end pay for that as well.

yes, I like your new tractor analogy. lol, I guess we didn't build that, the government did, so they get to give out the tractor for free to the banksters, who in turn rent it out to us.

In turn, they get the depreciation on the tractor, the rental profit, and heaven forbid we have an accident with their tractor, they will get reimbursed for a new one, while refurbishing the old one or using it for spare parts, and sticking us with the bill even the though the government probably insured the tractor on behalf of the bankster.

Current property rights are not graven in stone. They can be changed to better ones, with collective ownership of the means of production, rather than private ownership.

I strongly favor individual rights. Democracy must be built and controlled from below, so that individuals are in control of their own lives and workplaces. Your personal belongings, your Ipad and DVD-player etc, you don't have to worry about.

Sure. When democracy is built from below every individual will have a say in things proportional to how much one is affected and part of them. That means democracy on all levels in society, with strong local democracy.

Democracy might work well for small populations.
How well does democracy work for populations over 1 million, 10 million, 100 million, 1 billion?

2% is 20,000 for 1 million, 200,000 for 10 million, 2,000,000 for 100 million, 20,000,000 for 1 billion. The 2% could represent error rate of vote count or the number of represntatives needed for government.

The USA has crappy representation. How does democracy eliminate the lobbyists?

if an institution fails in some way in an anarchist society, then the people living in that community and participating in the affairs of the institution must try to find new and reasonable solutions to the problem.

You shouldn't get to own "your own business" all by yourself. The people must take control over their communities and workplaces, and if there are institutions that fail in a free democratic society, then people living in that community and participating in the affairs of the institution must try to find new and reasonable solutions to the problem

Stripping you from the illegitimate power over other people's life must be done thru organization and democratic process. If the people in your community want a society without private ownership on the economic institutions, and you refuse to accept the will of the workers and the community, then they're going to have to drag you out of the office if necessary.

We need to work for a libertarian socialist society with real participatory democracy everywhere.

Where exactly would you draw the line between individual liberty and the coercive power of law, especially in the realm of economics? Whether in societies of 250 Libertarian Socialists or 250,000,000, the number of the society's inhabitants is irrelevant to the individual.

People should have a democratic say in the things they're part of and affected by, and this say must be proportionally to how much one is affected. That is done by creating a democracy built from below with democratically run institutons and communities and so on. The economic institutions must be run democratically by the participants

Remember also that you don't have the monopoly on what lies in "individual liberty". I'm very for individual liberty: The freedom for every individual to go to school, having a decent home, control their own workplace etc etc.

In a complex highly technological advanced society measuring things down to every single detail is often meaningless. Logic/common sense would take you a long way here. So where do we spend a lot of our time and energy? Well, obviously at our workplace. Ok, so then it logically follows that democracy in your workplace should be strong. You obviously also spend time in and are affected by your local area/community. Ok, so then you should have a say in how this is run; but that should go for all the individuals in the community, so now more people are invoved. So by building democracy from below you get to be in control of the things you're a part of. Not very unreasonable, right?

Checked out the clips above. Thanks. Reason and the identification of the truth as Chomsky puts forth sounds perfectly rational to me. The challenge and rejection of falsehoods sounds good too as he briefly explains what he means by "burden of proof".

Apart from starting with a highly complex society, as we have today, and taking control of the means of production as you want, I'd rather discuss LS by taking another approach with you. Chomsky endorses the approach as being highly instructional. That is discuss within the context of a much simpler society. I like it because discussing it that way, can help clarify LS's principles, which if true, could then be applied reasonably to any society, no matter how complex.

Make sense to continue discussing in that vein? One of the reasons that I am asking is this. The idea of force requires a critical clarity of thought around it- when it's appropriate; when it isn't. (Recall the contempt held by the jokester for democracy. In telling the joke, he describes democracy on a deserted island of three people, where two of them vote to cook and eat the third.) Whatever the size of society, let's assume a limited one and discuss force as one of the topics. Ok, with you?

"Reason and the identification of the truth as Chomsky puts forth sounds perfectly rational to me. The challenge and rejection of falsehoods sounds good too as he briefly explains what he means by "burden of proof"."

Glad to hear.

About the other things you wrote: Share whatever thoughts you want, dude. I'll comment on what you present.

Some relationships between people involve conflict. But when disagreement between two people turns coercive, the wronged party has the right to defend himself from the aggressor. With that, what is the LS view of force? Does LS hold that an individual has the right to self defense?

"Some relationships between people involve conflict. But when disagreement between two people turns coercive, the wronged party has the right to defend himself from the aggressor. With that, what is the LS view of force?"

Coercion and force should be down to the minimum in all situations. Of course there can't be zero force, and that doesn't just go for LS; no matter what society we live in we're forced to follow the laws.

Libertarian Socialism advocates a decentralized society with democracy on all levels controlled from below. That way the force from concentrated power is gone and where there is force its decided democratically by the participants.

"Does LS hold that an individual has the right to self defense?"

Sure. The right to defend yourself against violence/attack is in my opinion common sense.

"The right to defend yourself against violence/attack is ... common sense". Oh if it were common, then I'd see all of us being a lot better off than we are today.

But on to my next question. It's about property, specifically the means to production. I am not presuming a complex economy but want to leave complexity out on purpose because doing so could be more clarifying for the sake of discussion. I have noticed your saying that you are against the individual owning property if the property is a means of production. Instead of such property (in my own paraphrase), it is the will of the people that determines what a resource is and who can use them. I simply can't square it because it flies in the face of the requirements of the individual to further his/her own life and how he ought to behave with others. Take two examples, one of a new innovator and the other of an aspiring worker. From these I have questions about resources. Who determines what a resource is? Who determines how it is to be secured and applied to any innovative process? I have questions about the beneficiary of individual actions in an LS society. Who determines the beneficiary?

For example in my view, the person who thinks about a way to create a better mousetrap or some other innovation presupposes himself as a beneficiary of his ideas. If he were to work to put them into action, he expends thought, energy and resources in making his ideas real because he believes that it is right that he benefit when the work is successful. To the best of his abilities, he has to plan, work his plan and involve people through voluntary means of persuasion at each step of creating, marketing and maintaining his innovation. Depending on whether and how he negotiated with other owners, the innovation may be exclusively his property or property shared with others. Depending on whether and how he negotiated with workers, he has to determine what skills he'll need from them and how he will compensate them . He has to measure the effects of his work and others have to measure the effects of the work in order to determine whether it truly does benefit each of their own lives.

In your view, you say that the innovator has no property accruing to him if it is the means of production. With the above simple example of the innovator, how does an innovator in an LS society behave and how do others behave towards him?

What are resources in an LS society? In creating this innovation, resources in addition to think and skills come to bear. Who identifies what these are? Who identifies where they are and how are they brought to bear for this particular innovation? Who actually garners them to an innovator and how?

Would the innovator have to call for a vote before proceeding to each step along the way of his innovation? Who gets to show up at the voting booths? What if groups of people outside his local group are most affected by the innovation? Who identifies that? Who rallies the voting within those distant groups being affected by the innovation?

What if, after having tallied the votes, the innovator was told that his innovation cannot be pursued at this time? But just the same, he wants to pursue it anyway? What if the vote tells him to proceed and creates the innovation. Who owns it? Even in a simple innovation like a mousetrap, many means of production went into it.

Take another example of my view. Suppose the person who wants to trade his skills with the innovator's desire for them. The worker is motivated by his own belief that he will be better off exchanging his skills for what this innovator can offer over and above what some other innovator can offer. This person's skills are developed by working them out with and on something. The worker works for other ends like a house, groceries, a car, a TV- all things that he believes are important to him.

In your view, are the skills of an individual his to offer? Or are they the province of voting by others in the society he lives in because they like other resources are the means to production?

Does this worker have to call for a vote when first developing his skills? I am asking because he'll need something to develop them with. Who gets involved in this democratic vote? How are the resources for skills development garnered and delivered to this aspiring worker? These resources are a means of production. Who owns them? What if the results of that voting indicated to the aspiring worker that he's not getting the resources that he needs in order to develop his skills in the first place? And once his skills are developed, does a potential worker in a LS have to call for a vote before proceeding to offer and secure employment with the innovator? (I ask because this worker affects not only the innovator but affects other workers vying to exchange their skills with the innovator- all means of production.) What if the results from the voting clearly indicate to the worker that he is not to pursue his interest with this innovator? What does the worker do then? And when the worker, completes a days work, what is he paid with? I am asking because money is a means of production too but in this property-less society there is no money that he's allowed to own. If he wants groceries does he face yet another vote in the democratic process of an LS society? Groceries like anything produced are part of a long series in a means of production. Who determines what he eats and how the goods are delivered to him?

Two simple examples spawning lots of questions for your review and comment.

I didn't answer all the questions because many of them were very similar and intertwined with one another - and there were a lot of them, but I hope I've cleared up some things.

"I have noticed your saying that you are against the individual owning property if the property is a means of production. Instead of such property (in my own paraphrase), it is the will of the people that determines what a resource is and who can use them."

Sure.

I simply can't square it because it flies in the face of the requirements of the individual to further his/her own life and how he ought to behave with others."

No it doesn't. In order for individuals to be free, resourses/wealth/production must be in the hands of the participants. A classless society makes all individuals free to live our their creativity and have a decent life.

"Who determines how it is to be secured and applied to any innovative process?"

The participants and the ones affected are the ones who should be in control of the decitions. It's really not that complicated.

"Who determines the beneficiary?"

All decitions in society are determined by the participants thru consensus/democratic process.

"If he were to work to put them into action, he expends thought, energy and resources in making his ideas real because he believes that it is right that he benefit when the work is successful"

First of all, there are specific brands of LS which advocates remunuration proportional to effort and things like that (cf Anarcho-Collectivism Parecon) but I personally lean towards the Anarcho-Syndicalsit/Anarcho-Communist ideas so Im gonna answer based on my personal view.

I think the wealth and resources (which has been built up thru generations of generations of people) should be shared; incentives to work should be based on peoples creativity, abilities and solidarity. We should work to create a society in which people work because they want to contribute, not because they want to make lots of money.

"In your view, you say that the innovator has no property accruing to him if it is the means of production"

The resourses should be owned in common and wealth should be shared based on need etc, Everyone whould have a decent life no matter what. Your example is therefore not very relevant.

"With the above simple example of the innovator, how does an innovator in an LS society behave and how do others behave towards him?"

He should contribute with his ideas based on his creativity and skills, and in a way that he feels is right for him. His - and everyone else's - contributions will benefit the entire society making it better for all.

I am suggesting that the backdrop for our discussion be an imaginary construct- a society without wealth but simply resources and simply people. Instead of discussing what to do about people's personal property that exists today whether accrued over generations (or in one generation) is a factor that I am suggesting we leave out. Let's discuss as if there is no personal property to begin with. In such an imaginary society people have yet to create anything. With that as a starting point, we can more clearly discuss how people would live.

In your view, the participants should work to create "because they want to contribute, not because they want to make lots of money." You say that the purpose of the individual in such a society is to benefit the entire society. And you go on to explain how such an individual would live by saying, "He should contribute ... based on his creativity and skills, and in a way that he feels is right for him."

(I am sorry about the sudden stop but I can continue on later because I have to get to a meeting.)

Well first of all, co-ops fex are growing in number, but the thing is that the system - capitalism - is undemocratic. Wealth / private power is very highly concentrated in the hands of people who have not been elected. That's totally unacceptable.

Do you really want to solve this problem? Then pursue nano-tech; really, when we can create all from thin air, all will no longer be of value. And the democratic voice will reign supreme. Is that really true? Or do you think the desire of power is rooted elsewhere?

Think of Linux which is freely available as compared to Microsoft's windows. It's just code and it will only be a matter of time before we use that code to print products made entirely of nanotubes. Nanotech has the ability to give anyone anything they desire, freely, as produced and replicated from code. It could eliminate all poverty, alleviate all suffering, make us all equally rich beyond our "wildest dreams."

There would be no need of capitalism, no need of trade.

One would assume that such a world would eliminate class warfare, discrimination, and end the struggle for resources, all wars... that we'd finally graduate to the peaceful, loving, fully-fulfilled, civil and humane humanity that we here appear to so highly esteem.

But is that really the case? What of the communal creature, of organizational structure, of hierarchy, of status and power? Would we still compete?

Would we still fight political wars, religious wars; would we still strive for mass mind?

Capitalism is but a symptom of inner desire... en large - an apparatus, a machine... but it's not just resources that we seek to capitalize. If it were neither of us would be here now.

New science and technology that make our lives better must be welcomed. It will in the future provide answers and solutions probably beyond our understanding today. But we have to focus today's policies mainly on today's society, and deal with future technology when that actually becomes reality.

This is not that far in the future, our code is rapidly advancing and the 3D printer is already here. Within but a few decades we will have the ability to do this on a micro, if not macro, scale. But, just like stem-cell research, there are also other concerns.

Listen, this is a little on the side of what I wanted to focus on in the post. A discussion about future technology is very interesting, but my original point was that people should have a say in the things they're a part of and affected by (no matter how technologically advanced our society is) Don't you agree?

Hell yea. Have you ever heard of Evolution or its rather colloquial "Natural Selection"? The thing is, it is something entirely focused on populace. Whether we label is as mutation, or genetic drift, or even some hybrid molecular process, it must affect change in a significant portion of the populace or the species fails.

Ideas may very well be evolutionary; perhaps they are the only true form of Natural Selection. But in light of capitalist history as evolution's choice, and current population growth, you cannot expect to impart any significant change here, unless capitalism fails, and then you'll have far more communism than you can handle.

Direct democracy, democracy by consensus, would be a wonderful thing, wouldn't it? Well, until we the hetero majority chose to deny marriage to the Gays, and then everybody will be going, whoa... wait a minute. But the gavel has dropped, "too late."

If you had said you'd like to abolish corporate imperialism, I might say, well, alrighty then. But I don't think there can be a serious discussion about abolishing capitalism, not that I don't understand its impact because believe me, I do.

Why don't you think there can be a serious discussion about abolishing capitalism? Today's system and property rights are not graven in stone; they can be changed, and there are very good arguments for dismantling this tyrannical system.

Many well established systems have collapsed in the past, Slavery in the US was dismantled, the Soviet tyranny was dismantled etc etc; it can happen again.

The tool of slavery was dismantled but not the South's economic logic - it still exists. Russia is also probably a poor example; although the USSR was dismantled in 1991, tyranny still reins supreme and they themselves are once again inviting capitalism - American companies are now in Russia as are investment dollars.

No one here is willing to give up individual right in favor of a Lenin styled communism; if they were they wouldn't be here posting on the Net now. It's just never going to happen anywhere in our universe.

I was talking about the fact that human beings were owned by other human beings. That was dismantled. Russia has moved more and more towards a state-capitalist police state after the collapse of soviet tyranny.

My point was that history has many examples of well established tyrannical systems collapsing. It can happen again.

I don't know anyone who wants leninism. I certainly don't. The leaders in the Soviet Union called themselves communists, but their totalitarian society had in reality very little to do with communism.

In the video He says the collapse of the Soviet union and the rise of democracy there was a huge win for socialism - that is where I disagree - I do not think socialism one a victory and that was what my comment was trying to say. The comment he makes is towards the beginning of the video you linked.

A good video - thanks - But I think Chomsky got at least one part totally wrong - the collapse ( apparent ) of the U.S.S.R and the change over to a democratic system - was in fact not a victory for socialism - no IMO it was just a change of camouflage.

Their Democratic process is no more actual democracy then their so called Socialism was socialist. Russia is still a dictatorship but they have learned from the West - give the people the "ILLUSION" of participation and influence of government and continue to do your own thing - lip service to the people - the dictatorship continues to roll along.

Now has the USA ( TPTB in the USA ) - have they borrowed a page from the old Soviet empire? We have heard of them - I have even commented on them - Question is - Are the really real(?) how many are there where are they located and do we have access to some good visual confirmation? What(?) You may ask at this point - and I would have to say FEMA camps - are they really real(?) are they gonna be the new Gulags of the USA(?) are political prisoners/dissidents gonna be the new residents? Is the mask gonna come of of the fake republic/democracy? Is that why corpoRATions are getting so open and blatant in their abuses(?) they don't care as they are ready to take their next step in open domination?

I understand that they needed to close his exhibit - Public Tourist attraction Mausoleum with the glass coffin - until he slowed down his spinning enough that they could get a hold of him and secure him in place ( wait a sec that may have been Lenin ).

Lenin's Marxism had the effect of creating class division as it pit the landed bourgeoisie against the un-propertied proletariat.

I understand when you use the word slavery that you are talking about human beings owned by other human beings; that your attack is one of ownership.

What ownership initially did was grant us - the European proletariat - the means of production. Capitalization through private production is fueled by innate desire; the idea that those who seek power are benevolent creatures that might promote a benevolent communal-ism or commune-ism is a blatantly flawed assumption; the acquisition of power demands its ever increasing containment - they are capitalists; power is capitalized and juxtaposed in balance with the proletariat; it's therefore the proletariat that demands the means of production.

The word "owned" has a history; it's not that the meaning has changed, it's that its application has changed in accordance with circumstance as a) our world secularized, and b), land and goods became more readily available.

Capitalism is not something that can be abolished; it exists everywhere as the product of innate desire. It's what informs us to seek some future security. Your desire to abolish capitalism is fueled by a desire to "capitalize" future security; a horse of a different color is still a horse.

No, I don't believe in majority rule or governance by consensus because it denies the minority a voice - that's not my interpretation of "freedom."

Capitalism as free enterprise can't be reined in - look at Russia and China; it will rise against the militaristic authority every time. There are now billions of participants, and capitalism I'm quite certain is very safe.

Even in the communist cooperative you'll never remove human deficiency; you'll never remove the politics or the corruption. Let's say we need to build 157 new 747's to meet our needs; they need to be safe so after we build them we're going to test them for deicing in a 50 million dollar facility; where does that 50 million come from to build that new facility? Obviously, there is a decision to be made - it's going to be made by humans, not machines - either by consensus or by some ultimate authority. While simultaneously there's a guy sitting across the table who disagrees; he'd prefer to spend the 50 on something else; it's all politics. And generally these people sitting at that table are so far removed and so misinformed by underlings, that it is impossible to make an intelligent decision. While it might be realistic to think such a system might meet basic needs, it will never meet wants; only the singularity of free enterprise is capable of that; capitalism caters to human desire, to wants, it fills the niche whatever our desire; every corporation had it's beginning here.

Capitalism can't be dismantled; it's not something any individual or group of individuals can control. It's like saying we're going to end all the religion in the world; it rises even where it has been outlawed (Russia, for example). And I don't want democracy - at all - unless we can return to village dwelling; we can't.

Then how about many small scale societies existing side by side? That'll make up a huge scale, and that's the hole point. Every community building democracy from below coopertaing with other communities.

"power structures develop whether we them to or not. Even if they did not you can't seriously believe that people will ever allow their lives to be so micromanaged."

Not when the society is decentralization and under direct control by the participants. Micromanaged? It's about people haing a democratic say in the things that affect them. That's reasonable and workable.

Maybe on a small scale but never on a huge scale; power structures develop whether we them to or not. Even if they did not you can't seriously believe that people will ever allow their lives to be so micromanaged.

"Capitalism is an extraterrestrial entity that eats and shits what and where it pleases... more"

A little strange way of putting it, but I get your point. But that's why we have to abolish it. It's an undemocratic, tyrannical system that causes exploitation of humans and natural resourses, it's got to go.

"..pray to each and every day."

Fewer and fewer people are praying to this destructive system.

"It's laissez faire democracy"

Oxymoron.

"the democracy you speak of would require an omnipotent central authority capable of world policing"

"No, I don't believe in majority rule or governance by consensus because it denies the minority a voice - that's not my interpretation of "freedom.""

Well, I don't agree. How are we going to decide which rights the minority should have, if not thru democratic process? And who's the minority? In some situations only a few people agree with you, and sometimes you are part of the mahority..In a society where we build democracy from below all individuals get a say in their affairs.

"and capitalism I'm quite certain is very safe"

Capitalism is not sustainable, it must be dismantled sooner or later. The sooner the better.

"Even in the communist cooperative you'll never remove human deficiency"

No society will ever be 100% perfect utopia. The point is to create a society in which humans are not trated like machines, where each individuals can live out its true creative urges.

"you'll never remove the politics or the corruption"

A libertarian socialist/libertarian communist society would be a more direct democratic and decentralized society, without concentration of power and authority, so things like that would be down to the minimum. If some people choose to be corrupt, then there must be consequences in terms of their relations to the group.

"Let's say we need to build 157 new 747's to meet our needs; they need to be safe so after we build them we're going to test them for deicing in a 50 million dollar facility; where does that 50 million come from to build that new facility? Obviously, there is a decision to be made - it's going to be made by humans, not machines - either by consensus or by some ultimate authority. While simultaneously there's a guy sitting across the table who disagrees; he'd prefer to spend the 50 on something else; it's all politics. And generally these people sitting at that table are so far removed and so misinformed by underlings, that it is impossible to make an intelligent decision. While it might be realistic to think such a system might meet basic needs, it will never meet wants; only the singularity of free enterprise is capable of that; capitalism caters to human desire, to wants, it fills the niche whatever our desire; every corporation had it's beginning here"

Listen, decitions over production must be handled by the participants (workplace and community) thru consensus or democratic prosess. All detiails in how this is worked out must be up to the participants.

Capitalism is undemocratic, tyrannical, exploitative, and unsustainable, it must be dismantled. We can't have a system in which people who are not elected by the people (the ceos and financial elite) get to have the overwhelming power in the economy.

Since you present yourself as one of the proletariat what other forms of economics would have provided a low level worker such as yourself with a computer, internet access and an air conditioned home to sit in while you post on websites bitching about the system that allows you the wealth and freedom to do so ?

First of all, lots of the things to do with computers etc actually came out of the state sector. Secondly, it's not x's expoitation of y (capitalism) that creates new technology and wealth ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-exploitation-and-involuntary-agreements/ ) but human hands and brains. Human creativity and work should be taking place in a free and just society with democracy built and controlled from below - where decitions in the economy is decided by the participants.

In democracies we ALL have one vote, this is center, the core. Pure, Simple, and True. The rich have no real advantage looking at the raw statistics, each person, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, Have ONE VOTE. This is why our constitution starts with these words: WE THE PEOPLE!

When we consider, capitalism, in and of itself, it's a shell game. Money is paper, it's only human beings who give value to it. It's nothing. But what it is, is what it can buy at any given time. Then it becomes tangible. It's not just a number, but a thing, a boat, an airplane. In the end it's a clever trick and IF done honestly not a bad idea. Boil it down, it's a tool. ((((((That can buy more tools :D

As it turns out, the problems lies with what value we do place on money and how we use it, for good, or for bad. Dollars have no opinion. We do.

I agree Capitalism by itself is not an answer to anything and it's value to us is only what we give it. It's a tool WE use. Nothing more.

Now, what's happens on the world stage is bad actors. Some get their money by scamming us. Some get their money by stealing from us. Some get their money by lying to us, Some get their money by raping our environment. Some get their money from polluting our environment. Some get their money by laying off American Workers. Some get their money by cheating their employees out of a decent living. Some get their money by lying, cheating, and stealing.

The rest of US, foreverLeft work for it, earn it. We don't have enough money to let our money work for us. We don't steal it, grub it from others, scam, or decieve.

ALL any of us want is fair playing field that's it. We want to be able to afford a college education if we have the ability to learn well. We would like to know that if we become sick we won't lose what little we do have. We want jobs, better jobs, we want to be able share our ability to work diligently and contribute to a society that cares about us. Yes, the proletariat is measure of how well a society is.

The proletariat has grown as the rich fat greedy pigs at the top have grown disgustingly fat with wealth. So little at the top, own so much. That's unbridled capitalism. Beyond the pale. They use their money to screw the proletariat and keep them down. Nothing like good ole cheap "slave" labor.

Unchecked capitalism never made rational sense. We did have a much better balance at one time, but now, the balance has undeniably swung into the rich's favor, big time. The middle class is disappearing and has been for decades. The proletariat grows bigger.

I say put capitalism in check, we don't need to abolish it completely. But it doesn't need to run rampant over our lives. We have allowed it to get too out of hand and it must reduced and fairness returned to this market.

Thanks, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. I do however think that we really must work for a society totally without capitalism. We should strive for a real decentralized participatory democracy - anarchism, and that means that capitalism must be dismantled.

Too extreme. Most things happen more gradually. I just don't think abolishing it entirely is the best path. It just needs to be limited. For instance, no money for raping the environment or polluting. Money can be used to encourage people, invest in people, etc...,

But I'm not saying that capitalism can or should be abolished over night. Lots of things must be done before we can get to that point; short term goals such as pushing for better protection of the environment and higher taxes on the rich etc. Our main goal however, should be to eventually totally dismantle capitalism and create a free, just and real democratic society.

We must organize a real democratic society that share the wealth, and the wealth must be taken back from the financial elite who got it mostly thru exploitation and bailouts. Remember the multibilliondollar bailout in 08? Now that's some serious "free shit" right there, right?

Besides, we all get "free shit" as you say, and free rides all the time. We live in a Free Ride Society